Content: Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Background: Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Pattern: Blank Waves Notes Sharp Wood Rockface Leather Honey Vertical Triangles
Welcome to TerraFirmaCraft Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

  • Announcements

    • Crysyn

      Only help if you can be helpful

      Hey All, A topic has come up of late in the IRC channel in regards to the general feel of the forums and the community that supports them. Things have progressed further than I would have liked with out this being addressed more publicly because I would much rather have snubbed this out sooner rather than later.. but I have been busy. Here is the general rule I would like people to follow: Wheaton's Law "Don't be a dick." Those of you from the IRC channel know that this is the only rule I ask people in there to follow and we generally have a good and lively time chatting about all manner of things. This is basic rule that just about everyone understands and I am going to expand it to the forums from here moving forward. If you can not help people in a helpful and polite manner then I simply ask you to stop. Now I generally take a back seat to moderating the forums as I like to participate in the suggestions forum fairly heavily at times and would rather do so as a forums user than a moderator. But I am also fairly well known for being the person who constantly puts their foot down and so I am stepping up and doing so on here. If you find yourself unable to respond to a message politely then I ask that you do not respond. This mostly focuses on the increasing level of hostility found within the Suggestion forum as well as the Server forum. I do not care if this is the 30th some odd time you have seen someone make the same suggestion. Or even if the new post on an older topic is one entry above the old one. I expect the members of this forum to respond politely to the user, new or old, and point to the older topic if it applies and even go the extra step to suggest they either add in new information or to summarize the outcome of the previous discussion based upon the new post's entry into it. That is what we are here for, that is why I close most topics instead of deleting them, so that they can be found and referenced down the road. The next topic is the slew of derailment attempts I have seen as of late. If you want to have fun and joke around that is what the off topic forum is for and pretty much anything goes there. I do not expect to read a suggestion thread and have to go through 3 pages of image memes people have shot back and forth. Quite simply this is a waste of my time to read and then have to clean up. Now for the summary. I am going to start taking a more active role, especially in policing the suggestion forum, and handing out warn levels to people whom I see doing this. These will be indiscriminate and applied not to just the first person who derails or is impolite on a topic or response, but to everyone whom follows the lead of that person. As I do not like doing things with out giving you all warning this post shall serve as that warning. If you have a desire to bring this topic up with me then I invite you to do so on the IRC channel. Lets raise the level of quality and grow the community. Let us not descend into the quality often found on the minecraft or league of legend forums. There is simply no need for that here. Be passionate about things, just do not be abusive.
    • Kittychanley

      Offline Servers

      Recently I've seen a few server listings showing up on the first page of the Servers forum that have been closed for an extended period of time, but have recently gotten a reply from a new member who didn't realize the server is offline. To help prevent this from happening in the future, it would be greatly appreciated if you could use the report function on the original post of any servers that have been confirmed as offline, so that the topic may be locked. If you are the admin of a server and plan on taking the server offline, please use the report function on the original post of your topic to let the TFC Staff know that the topic should be locked. If you are the admin of a server that has a locked topic, and would wish to bring the server back online, please use the report function on the original post of the topic to let the TFC Staff know that the topic should be unlocked. As always, please remember to follow rule #3 of the servers forum and update your topic title to contain the version of TFC that the server is currently running. You can do so by editing the OP, and then clicking on "Use Full Editor."

Darmo

Contributor
  • Content count

    639
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Darmo


  1. 11 hours ago, Stroam said:

    Now there are 5 islands North to south that don't get any harder.

    Just a nit-pick, it's 9 islands.  1 row of tropical, and then 4 above and four below of sub-tropical, temperate, sub-arctic, and arctic.

     

    11 hours ago, Stroam said:

     Even going through the public servers they generally aren't that big. So again not TFC 2's audience.

    I think that's unfair.  It's a bit like Thomas Watson or Ken Olson saying computers don't need to improve beyond government use because the market for them is so small.  TFC1 was never finished, and if taken in isolation was very poor from a multiplayer game design perspective.  It had one big achievement path - smithing - and that was it, and anyone could do it.  Everyone was the same, so why would you need others?   This is the reason I continually agitate for TFC2 to be better designed from a multiplayer perspective.  I think it would attract a larger multiplayer audience if it was better designed for multiplayer.  You look at the Happydiggers server, there's hundreds of people that have been on that server and successfully made a town.  The problem is they don't stick around.  Unless you're a ambitious builder or organizer, or a mining fanatic, there's no reason to once you hit red/blue steel.  There's nothing else to keep you.  I would argue that in fact the audience that continually power their interest in the game via single player is the small audience, and if a larger and more enduring audience is desired, better multiplayer design is the best way to go.  But I don't know if the devs even remotely care about that.  But imho the game can appeal to socializers at the same time as explorers and achievers, with ease, if designed correctly.

    0

  2. 2 hours ago, chepelink said:

    I do agree with you on this. People like discovery and achievement. The thing is that magic research is not the only way to achieve this; the island progression is another way. ... how much research can you put into magic (and other things for that mater) that does not break the main goal? Is innate a better approach to not padding the game too much?

    I don't see them as mutually exclusive.  It could be necessary to research a given spell, but then you also have to find the right materials to build the thing to cast said spell.

    I think you're right about necessity of progression; I assume that magic would have an island-progression element as well.  If it didn't, you'd risk breaking  progression via magic. If there's a lot of damaging spells, and the player could just find everything for the most powerful spells in the first column of islands, they could easy-mode their way through the first tiers. 

    So for an everyman strategy, there's a few scenarios I could forsee.  On the one hand, there's a good amount of damaging spells, that progress through the islands, not unlike weapons.   In this scenario one would kind of want a good balance, so that the spells are roughly as attractive as the weapons.  If they're not well balanced, a clear superior will emerge, and the other branch will get neglected This is undesirable.  Another strategy; magic is made more about effects and unusual stuff, less about damage.  Then there's not a need for a fine damage balance.  The magic side is buffs, debuffs, summoning, utility.  Damage is still mainly handled by weapons (and their enchantments).   And then a third way, it could be island-dependent.  So the denizens of some islands might be magic-resistant (fey, undead, demons, etc) while other islands might be inhabited by mobs resistant to weapon damage, but weak to magic (giants, ogres, orcs).  Then the player might be forced to change strategies depending on the island's inhabitants.  That or they look for an island with their preferred type of enemy.  Here again, balance between weapons and damaging magic would be less crucial.  They might be a bit unbalanced, but if certain mobs take 50% damage from one or the other, a slight unbalance won't be a big deal.

    I would contrast those scenarios, with more restrictive strategies.  For instance an everyman research scenario.  Here it may be that anyone can use magic just fine at any time, but there is a steep research gate, that requires a lot of research grind on the player's part.  Some players just won't want to do it, so they stick with weapons.  The ones that do the research would have magic as well.  One could justify damaging magic being slightly better, in theory, due to the work required to get it.  But at the same time the others may feel left out if they can't hack magic, but some players get magic AND weapons.  And that's undesirable imho.

    Then there's a divided path strategy, where the player is forced or strongly encouraged to choose.  This could occur with or without research.  But idea being, either the player is code-required to choose a path (via skill web, or enforced skill oppositions) or a mechanic is brought in whereby skills degrade over time, and it's just kind of very difficult to impossible for the player to maintain them all at high-functioning levels.  These strategies need some balance between the paths, but since they're divided to some degree, the balance doesn't have to be as tight, I think.  I've said a lot about those in other threads, so probably no need to re-hash them in detail here.

    Honestly the innate strategy is, I would imagine, the easiest to code, and the easiest to balance.  It's the default mode of minecraft and every vanilla magic mod.  I imagine it's how things will end up for TFC most likely.  Which is why I try to present as many arguments as I can for the validity of more divided strategies.

    0

  3. Yes, obviously things go faster with more people doing them.  In most cases speed = ease.  TFC has a few systems that transcend that equation currently - the smithing system being the main one, and the support mechanic being the another.  The smithing system, some people just don't think like that, and so they don't do well with it, and hence don't like it.   The support system is mainly a problem of world gen, and people misunderstanding how the cave-in mechanic actually works.  That and they're lazy.  Then there's propicking - some people, again, just have a hard time understanding how that works.  

    Everything else about the game is just varying degrees of time sinks.  Charcoal making and mining are two of the largest ones.  They can be very grindy and some people just don't like doing those particular grinds.  But they're not difficult.  The entire game is basically a time sink, so who's to say where the correct amount of time for any task is?  You'd have dozens of answers for any given task. 

    My own opinion, is that people like discovering or achieving things.  This gives those sudden thrills that make a game addicting, and also makes the player value the things.   That's why I think a research based magic system could enhance the multiplayer game a lot, but also provide another layer of discovery and surprise for single player, if done correctly.  And, if done correctly, it could be made adjustable such that those who don't like it can put it in easy-mode and not be overly bothered with it, while others could keep the difficulty of it, if they want to bring a bit more value to magic skills.  If the system is just easy-mode, and nothing else, then the latter case isn't even possible.

    0

  4. Ah, I see.  Well that's definitely an option. And it'd probably be the easiest to set up, since balance wouldn't be as important an aspect, and any research or skill web coding would not be required. 

    I don't know that it's clear that TFC2 is being designed as a 'multiplayer addon'.  The devs have in the past said that they were designing TFC1 for small group play, but I don't know if we ever saw that executed or not - it never was finished after all.  But I'd argue that if any one player can do everything in the game with relative ease, then it's fundamentally a single player game.  So for me, I'm still kind of wondering if TFC2 will be designed for multiplayer or not.  Because it's not clear to me yet.

    0

  5. I'm curious, by 'innate' system, do you mean something like a skill web?  So the player gets skill points that they use to unlock a spell or item, and now they know it?  Presumably they would still need to expend materials to make said item or cast said spell?  Or kind of simple achievement system?

    To me there's a strategic question to answer first, as to whether the devs see magic as a sort of add-on to smithing, that anyone can use?  Or if they like the idea of a distinct path for magic users, that discourages players from pursuing both?  This has significant implications for the design of the system.

    It could be argued that if magic is an 'everyman' skill, it's easier to make it research and time intensive.  Because then it's optional.  The player can always just follow the tried and true weapons and armor to advance.   I would say this might be the most wide-open scenario in terms of system mechanics, and could even have a sort of mix-and-match feel, like how witchery has different elements that aren't necessarily totally intertwined.

    On the other hand, if magic is a distinct path, then it could be argued that the method of gaining magic needs to be on par with smithing in terms of time and effort.  That is unless magic is meant to be considered a 'hard mode' that just takes more time, but with greater rewards in the end.  Even in a distinct path scenario, I think that both innate and research are valid methods.  Research could be made as hard or as easy as desired.  The Thaumcraft research method isn't particularly time-consuming.  Then there's my suggested research method in the other thread, which can be a bit more time intensive.  But even that can be adjusted to make it easy.

    So ya, to me that's the most important initial question: everyman, or distinct path?   The rest is just details, imho.

    0

  6. I think most of those google pictures kind of show them 'at alert'.  If you watch some youtube videos, they do seem to have a bit higher of a body posture when just chilling, but I don't think nearly as much as those pictures show.   I'd probably just go for solid lines of color, parallel with the wing lines, so they read nice and sharp.  I think with a lower body angle it'd work.  You are right that it may justify changing the body structure a bit (though it'd definitely be more convenient if it could be made to just simply be a new texture and not a new model), as they don't seem as round as normal guineas.  I'm open to suggestions if you want to play around with it, I won't have time for the next couple days probably.

    Sorry I didn't reply to your comment earlier Therighton.  I just saw Alpha's comment and didn't look any higher.  You guys commented really close together.  I can agree on all those points I think, though I think the fine scale of guinea pattern would pretty much necessitate a double scale texture, where the armadillo it wasn't really necessary.  I think it'll still look good, possibly since the double-scale area is the majority in the guinea, whereas in the armadillo it was a small area, so I think the few areas of normal size texture won't be overwhelming it, perhaps.  In the end I think almost all small animals are going to appear fine scaled to one degree or another, just by virtue of having to be scaled down.  The final test will be seeing them in game.  I'd be more worried if I spent tons of time on these models, but I had some time this weekend and thought they'd both be quick to build and texture, which they were, so no big loss if they don't work.

    0

  7. Fair enough on the bands.  I got a bit obsessed with wanting to have some variation within bands.  Here's one with normal texture size.  You're probably right about it being a better solution.

     

    ArmadilloPic1xScale.png

     

    As far as curving the body, you mean like the aardvark, with two angled body pieces?  I considered having smaller boxes fore and aft of the banded section (but not angled), to give it some taper.  But I've rejected such notions in animals with more taper (specifically Konlii's camel), so I couldn't justify it to myself in this case just to give a bit of taper to the body.  But, here's a rough example of how it might look with more body sections:

    ArmadilloPic3Box.png

    Would something like this alleviate some of your concerns?  It probably does help the head-body relationship more than for most animals, given that it has no neck.  As far as pixel size, it's 9 pixels tall, scaled down to correct size would be about 5 pixels, which is around a foot.  Technically a couple inches over the google-given max, but pretty close.  If you're talking relative to it's own proportions, I don't really see it I guess.  Maybe the 3-box body helps that height impression?  When you mention curving the head down more, you mean like, rotating the whole thing downward? Adding some extra angle to the nose so it's not square to the head?

    No prob on the break.  I myself was basically absent for six months, and still don't have the spare time I used to.  Life happens, and it's not like we're on salary or anything.

     

     

    0

  8. I like that.  I'd tried the light spots, but I didn't offset them, and I thought it looked to meshy.  I thought the checkerboard was a good compromise.  But I like what you did there.  As far as I can tell, I think they have pretty much the same pattern everywhere except the wings, so I'd say what you did there would be a good replacement for all the checkerboard.  Your next challenge, Vulturine Guinea Fowl! :D

    vulturineguinea.jpg

    0

  9. Armadillo.  Used double-scale texture so I could fit in the bands at a decent scale. Head is a bit higher than natural, but I thought it looked better with the boxy body.  Even at this size, it'll need scale down to 50-60%.  Snout also felt like it needed a nose or something, but they don't really have noses in the normal dog or bear way.  I tried adding a single 1 pixel cube with various alignments, but they kind of seemed unnecessary, idk.   Also, the ears will actually be hollow in the end.  I left them solid for now because otherwise they look weird.  Let me know any thoughts.

    ArmadilloPic.png

    ArmadilloTexture2x.png

    Armadillo.MCModel

    0

  10. So I made a quick guinea fowl.  It's intended to be a sub-tropical to tropical chicken.  Irl the male and female are hard to visually distinguish as they both have wattles and combs - their cries are the more sure-fire way.  But that's not practical for TFC, so I gave the males 2 pixels of cheek wattles, the females not.  The texture is double size so I could make the plumage pattern.  I grouped the non-plumage areas so those areas have a normal-looking texture scale, but it'll still need to be scaled down to about 60% or so of this size.

    GuineaFowl2xTex.MCModel

    GuineaFowlFemale.png

    GuineaFowlMale.png

    GuineaScreen.jpg

    0

  11. 15 hours ago, chepelink said:

    I read most of the post .....will there be mobs in the sea that make it too dangerous? A stamina bar for swimming?

    problem is, as is typical for long running forums, both those suggestions were discussed in another thread.  That one was "Boats & Ships".  If that person had only searched for "boats" maybe this could all be in one thread.   That one also received Dev commentary, so they're both good to know about.

    0

  12. As far as version, it seems like the devs have been tracking with vanilla more or less.  It was brought up to 1.10.2 in July according to github.  I haven't seen any record of a 1.11 update since then though.

    1

  13. Like Ciekma says, you're getting actual readings.  It counts the actual blocks in a 12-block radius of you every time you use it.  If you mined out the heart of the vein and it's still giving VL, it's possible there's simply a lot of diffuse ore around the boundaries of where you mined.  But if you didn't go down to the next stone layer, it's also possible there's more below, or even above.  It's a lot easier to tell what's going on if you do gallery mining instead of more haphazard techniques.

    0

  14. Ya, I noticed those position problems too once I posted the pictures side by side.  I spent a lot of time playing with different angles and sizes and apparently things got off without me noticing.     It'll be easy enough to fix, but I'd really like to find out if there's a possibility of getting a per-box option to have back face culling nullified before I spend more time on it.  If so, I think the full boxes route will just make things easier overall.  But if we can't do that, then we'll just go with your original 2d planes Alpha, as you did a good job with positioning those.  So I'm going to shelve this one until we can get a ruling from Bioxx on the culling.

    0

  15. Finally got around to going for thinner quills.  It ended up being much easier to just double the size of the texture, and simply reducing the quill parts of the texture to 1 pixel wide.  I first did this for The original model (left), but then I did try to rearrange the quill boxes, and also make them actual full 6-sided boxes (right), to reduce their numbers vs the multitude of 2d planes.  It also seems like the 2d planes in the original model make it harder to select other boxes sometimes. 

    The problem with this is the backside culling makes them not show up on the 'inside'.  I remembered Konlii (I think) mentioned that actual minecraft shows the backsides.  After a little research, my impression is that the default is for backsides to be culled, but it's possible to cancel this behavior temporarily, to render boxes where you want the backsides shown.  So my question for Bioxx is, could we get MCMC updated so that each box has a check box option to NOT cull the back faces of that particular box?  It'd make the modeling end of things a lot simpler.

    PorcupineV5&V7.jpg

    0

  16. Ya, as far as each 4k square area having different forms of generation, I do think that's a good idea.  Way back, Bioxx kind of suggested this might be the case, or at least that some regions would have no island and just be open ocean.  Personally I think it would be great if they at least had a small island or archapeligo.  Some people really like controlling an entire island.  As far as help coding, Bioxx has expressed his opinion on that in the past - he doesn't seem wild about the idea.  Though I don't know what qualifies as a 'pull request', being not a coder myself, and of course opinions can change.  I kind of doubt if TyronX would be interested, given that he's apparently making his own game now, separate from minecraft.  TFC would be direct competition with his game.

    0

  17. Would the sieve require anything unusual (like string)?  If not, probably best to just use sticks to make a clam rake.  I've never really heard of anyone using  sieve to get clams.  But otherwise sure, a timed right-click thing like gold pans or fire starters would be fine too.

    But beyond that, if you follow the github progress Bioxx recently put in support for Harvestcraft.  Gardens generation is in, and I'm guessing the HC crops are as well.  I'm pretty curious if this is full-on replacing all native TFC2 crops (the ones Pam's has anyway) and moreover, are all the cooking utensils, bee mechanics, etc being used?  For instance HC has it's own quern, but I'd hope they'd keep the TFC1 quern.  HC also has animal and fish traps, which catch any and everything from fish to eels to shrimp to clams.  So the HC trap is extremely simplified, and if incorporated as-is, it would obsolete basically everything discussed here I think.  So I'm really curious on the full scope of the HC implementation, as it affects a lot of mechanics and suggestion threads, depending on just how much of it is implemented.

    0

  18. On 12/1/2016 at 5:02 PM, MonzterAssassin said:

    I think Nomadism should be emphasized in the newer version somehow. I can't think of how just yet but when I do I'll post some ideas either here or in the Suggestions forum. I'd also like to see larger continents w/ lakes that have archipelagos out in the oceans, which would help gear TFC2 for multiplayer, as currently there isn't too much incentive to want to coop/war w/ other players.

    So, my current understanding of TFC2 is that it will already encourage nomadism, due to the progressive metal island hopping.    This however is probably not what you're looking for as far as larger continents (the island will be around 4k across at most).  You may want to check this post I made awhile back, summarizing some of the relevant threads, with posts by the devs.  Check out those threads.   You'll have a much clearer picture of where TFC2 is headed - or at least, the most recent thoughts the devs have expressed publicly on these things, as long as about a year and half ago.

    0

  19. Ok, so I've been working with some other bodies.  They all use the same texture as the previous post, so that'll have to be altered in the end.  But in general:

    On the left, a sloped main body, with haunches for rear legs.  Similar to what several of the rodents use. 

    In the middle, arched body, no haunches.

    And on the right, the combo; arched body with haunches.

    I realized that the no-haunch look is probably better for armadillo and pangolin, with their heavy armor, whereas the aardvark looks better with haunches.  I'd be ok with first or third either one.  But I think you're right Alpha, that the arched back does help so I'm leaning third.  Any other thoughts?

    AardvarkV6comps.jpg

    0

  20. Look down the forum list a bit and you'll see a Terrafirmacraft 2 section, with three forums for various TFC2 discussion.  So far Bioxx seems to be keeping TFC2 updated to minecraft's current version, so it seems likely TFC2 will be on par with vanilla.

    Edit: but to be clear, the current version of TFC is not being developed any further.  What you get in TFC2 will be rather different from TFC1. 

    0